Parallel development or not

Which came first?.....shaped skis......and then fat wide butts....which changed ski instruction......OR........fat butts first which necessitated shaped skis with a wide stance to accomodate the big pelvises?

Some people will never have good enough balance to ski with their skis very close together (even touching) and parallel, the way we used to.
Those people wouldn't be skiing if they didn't have shaped skis.

Remember all the people we knew in the days of straight skis who went on trips, with high school or college, learned a little bit about skiing, then never skied again after the 4th or 5th time? They'd be skiing fast on blue groomers with shaped skis, and loving it, instead of quitting the way they used to.

Some people will never have good enough balance to ski with their skis very close together (even touching) and parallel, the way we used to.
Those people wouldn't be skiing if they didn't have shaped skis.

Fortunately, the old long straight skis and uncomfortable boots are a thing of the past, and now the equipment makes skiing much easier, especially at the beginning stage, but "to ski with their skis very close together (even touching) and parallel, the way we used to" is not something that has ever been particulary desireable in my book. There is parallel with you skis touching, and with them shoulder width apart. If someone is stuck on the first style then they will probably never have the dynamic independant leg action necessary to be be a really good skier. When Stien Erikson was teaching feet glued together parallel, Killy was winning 3 gold medals with a wider stance. IMO feet together parallel skiing is more of a sylized nostalgic concept than it has ever been a practical way to ski, but I agree that with the current state of things the new equipment makes the learning curve much shorter.

Skiing with your skis very close together and parallel is an excellent way to ski down a mountain.
If you know how to ski this way, you can always step wide whenever you need to, as I do, and if you need to go down the whole mountain with a wider stance, you can do that too.
The point is that you can pick a very fine line and ski it precisely if your skis are close together.
Once you step out into a wider stance you subject your two legs to different pressures at different times, feeding different stresses up into your hip sockets, alternately raising one side of the pelvis than the other, from side to side and flexing the lumbar region of the spine in a damaging manner.
Stuck with that posture, one of your skis may take the fine line, but the other will be somewhere else even if it's perfectly parallel.
Neanderthals had a wide stance while walking; the wider your stance on skis the more you resemble one of them.

Skiing with your skis very close together and parallel is an excellent way to ski down a mountain.
If you know how to ski this way, you can always step wide whenever you need to, as I do, and if you need to go down the whole mountain with a wider stance, you can do that too.
The point is that you can pick a very fine line and ski it precisely if your skis are close together.

Neanderthals had a wide stance while walking; the wider your stance on skis the more you resemble one of them.

The finest and most precise line is skied with only one ski at a time, and having your other ski right next to it is not a requirement, or particularly desireable in many situations. If you insist on always keeping your skis together that is certainly your prerogative, and I'm sure it makes you look "excellent," but in my skiing form follows function as opposed to being dictated by a particular style. Your style apparently stalled 30 years ago, which obviously works for you, but the new equipment (which is the subject of this thread) allows new style options, which you have evidently choosen to ignore. I used to ski your way too, but once you stop learning new tricks you are nothing but an old dog, which come to think of it is kind of like being a neanderthal.

The finest and most precise line is skied with only one ski at a time, and having your other ski right next to it is not a requirement, or particularly desireable in many situations.

And you're suggesting that by skiing with your feet 24 inches apart, it's actually possible to ski with only one ski at a time?

The whole point of skiing with the skis very close together is to make it possible to keep one of them unweighted most of the time, and ski on the other one. Which one is weighted, and which unweighted, depends on which way you're turning.

Which came first?.....shaped skis......and then fat wide butts....which changed ski instruction......OR........fat butts first which necessitated shaped skis with a wide stance to accomodate the big pelvises?

Has fast food forever changed the way america skis?

One thing I noticed about skiing where my wife and I ski in Vermont: There aren't a lot of "fat" people who are so big, they physically couldn't ski parallel. I just don't think skiing lends itself well if you're a very overweight individual. Now, that's not saying, everyone I see on the slope is ready to be on the cover of a fitness magazine, but generally, they aren't massive individuals.

I like seeing big fat people ski. Makes me hungry for some reason...that, and nauseous at the same time. The big fat skis they're on are sort of like a McDonald's super-size box of french fries. And the fart-bag ski suit is like a giant plastic ketchup container. And the poles are like Chicken McNuggets. And the ski cap is like an upside down ice cream cone....

Which came first?.....shaped skis......and then fat wide butts....which changed ski instruction......OR........fat butts first which necessitated shaped skis with a wide stance to accomodate the big pelvises?

Has fast food forever changed the way america skis?

Naw, It all started with Romans deciding that Charriot wheel bases needed to be standardized to match the width of horses' butts. That resulted in the the standardization of road widths all across Europe, and then the early US colonies. Today the width of train tracks is still set to that same measurement the Romans demed "Optimal" for two house charriots. So now that is how far apart horses' skis need to be on shaped skis.

And you're suggesting that by skiing with your feet 24 inches apart, it's actually possible to ski with only one ski at a time?

Yes, it is "possible" to ski with one ski at a time and have the other one over your head, and that's my point, constant feet together style severly limits your possibilities. We obviously have irreconsilable views on this, but it appears that you are somewhat concerned about what you look like while skiing, whereas I have could care less if I look like a "neanderthal," or whatever, as long as it works. Other than the apparition of pro mogual or slalom gate skiers, no one including world cup racers, big mountain free skiers, or park & pipe skiers uses a feet glued together style. It certainly works best in many snow and terrain situations, and it is something every good skier needs to be able to do, but it stopped being my "go to" stance years ago with the advent of shorter more shaped skis. The fact that a wider stance works for skinny me and fat people evidences its practicality and versitility.

The universal "athletic stance" is with your feet shoulder width apart. IMO, anyone forcing their skiing into the style of skis very close together as much as possible is unnecessarily resticting it. Yes it's possible for a very good skier to ski well that way, I just don't see it as the ultimate goal for skiing style anymore.

The closer the skis are, the less stress there is on the pelvis, hips and lumbar spine. This is why it's a better way of skiing.

It looks better because it feels better. And it feels better because it is better.

Of course some people will never have good enough balance to keep their skis close together without falling. Some even fall a lot with their skis wide apart 'for stability'. That's a hell of a system there - keeping them spread for stability and falling anyway. They say 'if you don't fall you're not getting better'. (!)

It's easy to step wide from a close parallel position into a wide and sloppy stance when conditions require it; possibly for the entire run. It's much harder to start spread out like a gorilla and then pull in to get balanced and take a fine line down the mountain.

The closer the skis are, the less stress there is on the pelvis, hips and lumbar spine. This is why it's a better way of skiing.
It looks better because it feels better. And it feels better because it is better.

Aww man, you're gonna tear up your pants and scratch up the insides of yor boots and topshets

Aww man, you're gonna tear up your pants and scratch up the insides of yor boots and topshets

Yeah, that's why you spread secret sauce all over your pants and skis---it's a well-known fact that Big Mac secret sauce is completely impervious to all known destructive forces including nuclear warheads. I should know, because the kids spilled it all over the back of the mini-van and I still can't get it off the upholstery...:

Naw, It all started with Romans deciding that Charriot wheel bases needed to be standardized to match the width of horses' butts. That resulted in the the standardization of road widths all across Europe, and then the early US colonies. Today the width of train tracks is still set to that same measurement the Romans demed "Optimal" for two house charriots. So now that is how far apart horses' skis need to be on shaped skis.

I think I've already read this. Here on Epic, some years ago...
Mmmmhhhh

Yeah, that's why you spread secret sauce all over your pants and skis---it's a well-known fact that Big Mac secret sauce is completely impervious to all known destructive forces including nuclear warheads. I should know, because the kids spilled it all over the back of the mini-van and I still can't get it off the upholstery...:

Baby wipes, break em out & start in on the upholstery. Haven't found anything impervious to those yet.

Which came first?.....shaped skis......and then fat wide butts....which changed ski instruction......OR........fat butts first which necessitated shaped skis with a wide stance to accomodate the big pelvises?

Some people will never have good enough balance to ski with their skis very close together (even touching) and parallel, the way we used to.
Those people wouldn't be skiing if they didn't have shaped skis.

Remember all the people we knew in the days of straight skis who went on trips, with high school or college, learned a little bit about skiing, then never skied again after the 4th or 5th time? They'd be skiing fast on blue groomers with shaped skis, and loving it, instead of quitting the way they used to.

me = has good enough balance to ski one ski in a bump run, but relizes that feet locked together is not the best way to ski everywhere. I bet you ski everywhere pushing your tails out and edge setting at the bottom of the turn.....

also mr self rightous funny how you make fun of people that couldnt stand skiing on shape skis but you yourself has never gotten with the time and relize there more ways to skiing than your way.